Author
Topic: Communing Non-Chalcedonians (Read 18305 times)

Spartacus, just forget it. You don't have any idea what's going on but you have chosen to act as spiritual father and judge. No thanks. You can take your shame back on yourself for making up what you think happened and trying to publicly execute me for it on this thread. God help you.

Many of these offering of Holy Communion arguements w/ both RCCs and Non-Chalcedonians on a "pastoral basis" is rather interesting. To me, it sounds rather oblivious to modern means of travel and communication and the praxis of individuals. You look at historical praxis, where certain Orthodox people's as a practice would only receive Communion few times a year or less. But that was usually due to their own practice and discipline and we know the Fathers advocate more frequent Communion (AND CONFESSION).

Where I went to college in northern california, we had an occasional attendee at our newly formed OCA mission, a Russian lady from China who live out in the hills and was an Old Believer. Around a year ago, I called up the priest there to see how things were doing and one thing I heard was the he confessed her and gave her Communion for the FIRST TIME IN FIFTY YEARS! I had no idea and thought that was amazing. This lady though was at least in her late 70s maybe 80s and not in great health and so obviously didn't have the means to travel often.

Back to my main point...in the United States here, with so many different Orthodox Churches (using the term VERY loosely in this since), there isn't much excuse unless you are infirm to really need a priest from a different faith to commune you except for dire circumstances. I highly doubt these circumstances really occur that often. If you are non-Chalcedonian, for example, there is no need really to be communed at the moment when you can just travel to a non-Chalcedonian Church probably a few hundred miles away at the farthest some short time later. Waiting another week or even a month or so until your next oppotunity is not a big deal compared to those who don't commune that often even in their own parish!

Let me just say a few things about how "intercommunion" is viewed and practiced in my parish.

I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, under the Patriarchate of Moscow. Our Parish has two priests and a small monastery. My country is not a traditionally Orthodox country but of a western type. In this country we have a few thousand Copts and Syrians, and not a few of them attend AND commune in our parish. In this we are following the instructions of our Bishop Vladyko Simon of Brussels. The instructions boil down to this, since non-Chalcedonians ARE Orthodox, they are allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries in a Russian Orthodox Church when they cannot attend a parish of their own jurisdiction. No conversion, or ' reception' is necessary. And when non-Chalcedonians CAN attend their onw jurisdiction but prefer our parish all that is asked of them is that they be true to this parish and do not parish-hop around.

This goes so far that a while ago Vladyko Siomn allowed an Eritrean priest to perfrom a Divine Liturgy in our parish to serve his people with only ONE limitation. There should be a little extra table in the Altar over which this priest had to lean to perfom the Divine Liturgy. The table should serve to remind us of the our common Orthodoxy that is as yet not fully healed from the schism concerning Chalcedon. Sadly the priest took offense and refused the offer.

I have also took Hegoumen Onufry for a visit (at his request) to a monastery of the Syriac Orthodox Church in our country (I was the driver) where their Archbishop resides. It was a very blessed day, and we were well-received and were invited to join evening prayers with them (which we did). We also visited the grave of a relative of one of our Syriac parishioners to pray. The vision of our parish priests and that of our God-enlightened Bishop Vladyko Simon are of a truly pan-Orthodox (not ecumenical per se) depth, and I am surprised and amazed,.. no,.. shocked by some statements made about the non-Chalcedonians here by Chalcedonians.

May God forgive us, thru the prayers of St. Mary Theotokos and St. John the Forerunner.

IC XC

Grigorii

Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

While I don't think things like this should become the norm (on both sides...I don't think we should commune EO regularly either, since we regard ourselves as the Orthodox Church) until various issues are resolved, reality is often less "straightforward" than we'd like to admit.

I'd like to hear more about this from the Non-Chalcedonian perspective. I imagined this would be the case. If I were Coptic, Eritrean, Syriac how would I view the Chalcedonian Churches and their receivng sacraments at my Church?

Let may just say something, and i know i'm gonna sound way out of wack here...

If you went absolutely to the letter about everything that happened between us(Alexandria, i'm a Copt) and how and why Chalcedon was rejected by Alexandria, you will see that CANONICALLY, what we have is not schism; we just don't have FULL communion, in no way was ANY non-chalcedonian bishop or priest treated the same way as were the arians or macedonians, and this is where Augustine and i heavily disagree, there is no 'modern' NC or back in the day NC, we need to go back to Cyril, i would like to ask here at this point.. who here has really studied what we 'modern' NC's say according to Ss. Dioscorus and Severus that does not in any full way comply with our common father among the saints?

Can anyone here quote anything un-Orthodox that our NC fathers Dioscorus and Severus wrote as heresey?

This is not a challenge, this is for my honest furthering in The Truth, so please reply as you would to a loving brother.

Can anyone here quote anything un-Orthodox that our NC fathers Dioscorus and Severus wrote as heresey?

I don't think so,.. I would go even further,.. The christology of St. Severus of Antioch has certain virtues that appear to be lacking in St. John of Damascus. Tho imo there are certain things lacking in St. Severus too,.. I would say both are right at the core of their christology but wrong in their onesidedness.

IC XC

Grigorii

Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

I'd like to hear more about this from the Non-Chalcedonian perspective. I imagined this would be the case. If I were Coptic, Eritrean, Syriac how would I view the Chalcedonian Churches and their receivng sacraments at my Church?

Honestly, I think OO's mind communing EO's less than EO's mind communing OO's. My preference is that these things be kept to a minimum because we are not currently in full communion and so any such instance must be for a good reason and clearly the exception, and because it's just less messy that way. But if you asked me if it was something I inherently disagreed with, or if it was something I'd leave my parish over, I'd say definitely not.

Honestly, I think OO's mind communing EO's less than EO's mind communing OO's. My preference is that these things be kept to a minimum because we are not currently in full communion and so any such instance must be for a good reason and clearly the exception, and because it's just less messy that way. But if you asked me if it was something I inherently disagreed with, or if it was something I'd leave my parish over, I'd say definitely not.

Can anyone here quote anything un-Orthodox that our NC fathers Dioscorus and Severus wrote as heresey?

Hoo, boy...and here we have the reason for the recent renaming of the "Oriental Orthodox" subforum...if you want, you can go look through the many (often heated) conversations had by Peterfarrington (NChal) and Linus7 (Chal). They went around this tree over and over and over....

That having been said, I personally don't think there's a problem with the Christology as much as there is with the hagiography -- each side has highly revered saints that the other has unquestionably condemned as heretics. I don't know of any EO who would agree to full communion with a group that called St. Leo of Rome a heretic (I certaintly couldn't do so), and I know the reverse is true as well.

I agree that the biggest problem does not concern christology but hagiography,.. Tho I would have no objection to "official" rejection of certain aspects of St. Leo's theology, I (as an EO!) am extemely unhappy with his Tome and would NEVER use it as a source of dogmatic theology; I am equally unhappy with his ecclesiology where he assumes and seeks to enforce "universal jurisdiction" for the See of St. Peter. I am much more comfortable with the christological teaching of such masters as St. John of Damascus and St. Severus of Antioch, and indeed precisely these two!

So,.. I am unwilling to call St. Leo a heretic, but I am also unable to say he is a source of Orthodox dogmatic theology, due to un-Orthodox tendencies in his theology. I would argue the same for the "enemy" St. Leo thought necessary to fight the aged shepherd of souls the Archimandrite Eutyches. His theological statements are capable of an Orthodox interpretation as much as are St. Leo's. Tho none of them are a relaible source of Orthodox dogmatic theology, quite the contrary! Tho this is strictly MY[/b] opinion and impression of the matter.

Perhaps a de-polemicized hagiography can help re-establish intercommunion in the One Orthodox Church?

IC XC

Grigorii

« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 06:47:06 AM by Grigorii »

Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

Gonna be honest. When I converted to Orthodoxy, Chalcedon was one subject I just glossed over. Didn't know a thing about it except that EO's accepted it and that there were Non-Chalcedonians who didn't, and that, since it was an Ecumenical Council, we were right for accepting it. How's that for simplistic? :-

Still don't know much about how Chalcedon affects St. Leo -- the only reason I know about St. Cyril's theology is through Peterfarrington and other NCs on this board -- and I know many of his quotes have been used to defend the Papacy...yet there is a lot of good in his writings which I HAVE read; he is SAINT Leo, after all (at least to the EO).

Yes, if indeed the christologies of the saints can all legitimately be seen in a truly Orthodox light, we not only need to discuss Christological terms, but also how all can be seen in this light and also lift anathemas...without somehow contradicting the Council we believe to be God-breathed...hoo boy...it's just past seven and I've already got a headache!

There is no argument about him being SAINT Leo,.. But despite his sainthood, I still believe he is simply wrong in some matters; like the tendency to separate the "actions" in Christ and his "universal jurisdiction" theory.

Also, I would find little trouble in intercommuning with the Oriental Orthodox without them accepting Chalcedon. Its not the Council that is so important for intercommuion, but it is the faith[/b] the Councils express,..There is only one Orthodox Creed which binds us all together and it was established in two Councils and is considered authoritative (and Chalcedon does not seek to replace it but merely to interpret and explain it). I would say that the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian Traditions are both God-breathed tho not necessarily infallible (I hesitate to apply Protestant word-to-word literalism to the Councils as much as I do to Scripture) in their content. Now the task I see ahead of us not so much pushing the one expression upon the other, or replacing one with the other, but the task would be more along the lines of finding an expression that is the dialectical result of both. Cos to me Holy Tradition is not mere loyalty to the past, but the living Presence of the Holy Spirit that is upwardly open. Kinda,..

But its warm,.. I've been sitting in the sun for a loooong time,.. and might suffer from overheating,..

IC XC

Grigorii

Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

Spartacus, just forget it. You don't have any idea what's going on ... God help you.

I thank you for your prayer for God's Help. Perhaps though you yourself can help this miserbale sinner?

Please explain to me how it is right, charitable or Orthodox to over hear parts of a private conversation in your temple, and then make that a topic for discussion on the internet without first talking to your priest?

Please explain this to my simple brain. I have always thought that if I had a question about something in my parish, I should first talk to my priest.

Have I been wrong lo' these many years?

Your explanation will be greatly appreciated for as you said....I do not know what is going on...I have no idea. Please share your knowledge and wisdom on this matter with this lowly sinner.

I thank you for your prayer for God's Help. Perhaps though you yourself can help this miserbale sinner?

I can't help you, especially if you are going to mock me.

Quote

Please explain to me how it is right, charitable or Orthodox to over hear parts of a private conversation in your temple, and then make that a topic for discussion on the internet without first talking to your priest?

It was out in the open, no low talking, in a 30'x30' nave. The priest holds private conversations in his office or downstairs.

Others had talked to the visitors and knew they were Coptic. Others had seen them at Confession. Someone else asked the priest at trapeza if we commune Coptic Orthodox, and he said yes.

I kept my post anonymous. I have not said what parish I attend, who the priest is, or who the visitors were. If you know, and you think I'm gossiping, you should have emailed me privately.

Quote

Please explain this to my simple brain. I have always thought that if I had a question about something in my parish, I should first talk to my priest.

Is there a rule about first talking to the priest about anything you have a question about? Is it wrong to ask questions on the Internet of fellow Orthodox before talking to the priest?

Quote

Have I been wrong lo' these many years?

Yeah, I'm sensing the love in this statement. Tell me again why your parish is so great? Because they put up with you?

Quote

Your explanation will be greatly appreciated for as you said....I do not know what is going on...I have no idea. Please share your knowledge and wisdom on this matter with this lowly sinner.

dlwatkins....Please consider how much differently one might perceive your opening post, if it stated:

"A family of Coptic Christians is joining our parish. Our priest has heard their confessions and told me that the Russian Orthodox Church communes Coptics. Can anyone explain this to me further?"

Many times it is not what we say or write but how we write it. Please consider this as you review your opening post...reading your opening post from the perspective of all the reader knows is what you state.

When I first joined this board I was assailed by so much jurisdictional garbage I thanked God I found this board only after I converted. Please forgive me if I am sensitive to some people here being pharasiical in their posts and proclamations. Many here focus on the trees rather than the forest.

Years ago I focused on the forest and became Antiochian. I put off examining individual trees until later. It's now later, and now I am about to enter my 3rd jurisdiction in 3 years. What spiritual harm to my soul could have been avoided had I just examined the trees more closely to begin with, I wonder?

If you "focus on the trees rather than the forest" sooner you get told that you don't understand Orthodoxy, that you are a silly convert who doesn't focus on the right things, that you are going down the wrong path, etc. On the other hand, if you focuse on the forest first, and then after viewing the trees later decide to make a chance, you get called a jurisdiction hopper and do great harm to your soul and mind.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2004, 12:00:05 AM by Paradosis »

Logged

"Well, do I convince you, that one ought never to despair of the disorders of the soul as incurable? ...For even if thou shouldst despair of thyself ten thousand times, I will never despair of thee" - St. John Chrysostom

If you "focus on the trees rather than the forest" sooner you get told that you don't understand Orthodoxy, that you are a silly convert who doesn't focus on the right things, that you are going down the wrong path, etc. On the other hand, if you focuse on the forest first, and then after viewing the trees later decide to make a chance, you get called a jurisdiction hopper and do great harm to your soul and mind.

These are good points, Paradosis.

However...it seems to me to be a very (and I hate to say it this way, as the word is used as a sort of catch-all for all bad things within Orthodoxy) Protestant idea to simply pack up and leave based on one's own, individual interpretation of the canons. I emphasize not the "individual interpretation," as this is a part of any convert's experience; we all chose to become Orthodox. Rather, it is the idea that one must immediately flee and form a new jurisdiction, walling ourselves off because "those people" have gone off the deep end, when such a thing:

1) might not be so obviously necessary as it immediately seems, and 2) might have been avoided had we heeded the advice of those whose day-in, day-out calling it is to know and direct these matters.

...among EO, right. But the Non-Chalcedonians do NOT see him as a saint. Quite the opposite, I think....

Actually,.. a long time friend of mine,.. a Greek Orthodox of many years, has always stated that he cannot recognize the Jesus Christ he knows in Divine Liturgy and in prayer in Leo's Tome (and I would agree to a large extent). BUT as far as I am concerned, Leo (for some reason) has been canonized as a saint and I personally have no argument with it. I know many if not most Oriental Orthodox do have serious trouble in recognizing Leo's sainthood.

Tho Leo will never be part of my Icon-corner in my private devotions, I accept the judgment of the EO Church in this. However, I can imagine that after my visit to Egypt, my Icon-corner will be enriched by an Icon of St. Severus of Antioch.

IC XC

Grigorii

Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

However...it seems to me to be a very (and I hate to say it this way, as the word is used as a sort of catch-all for all bad things within Orthodoxy) Protestant idea to simply pack up and leave based on one's own, individual interpretation of the canons. I emphasize not the "individual interpretation," as this is a part of any convert's experience; we all chose to become Orthodox. Rather, it is the idea that one must immediately flee and form a new jurisdiction, walling ourselves off because "those people" have gone off the deep end, when such a thing:

As someone who belongs to a Church which is "walled off" from the better part of the various local Churches (ROCOR), I've often heard this criticism - that there is a Protestant like "personal interpretation" involved here, particularly in knowingly choosing to align one's self with a group with no official relationship with the likes of the EP, or the ancient Patriarchal seats (save tenously with Jerusalem.)

The problem with this view, however, is with the conclusion that such is a private matter in any sense. The last time I checked, there are Bishops involved on both sides of these issues - Bishops who object to ecumenism, the calendar innovation (which thankfully only a relative few in the Orthodox world actually observe), etc. As you indicate, any decision to subscribe to a p.o.v. is very individual, and that is unavoidable (just as you say, the decision to become Orthodox is like this to begin with.) But to equate this with a Protestant-style, "Bible and me" level of self exaltation is just inaccurate.

There is nothing "new" in the preaching of the Old Calendar heirarchs, nor any attempt to "re-invent the wheel" ala Martin Luther or the other "great" reformers of the Reformation. If anything, it is a dogged refusal to adopt certain changes in doctrine and praxis which characterizes the "Old Calendarists" (or "traditionalist" bodies like ROCOR), and just the opposite which characterizes the innovations (in both thought and deed) of their opponents/detractors.

There is nothing "new" in the preaching of the Old Calendar heirarchs, nor any attempt to "re-invent the wheel" ala Martin Luther or the other "great" reformers of the Reformation. If anything, it is a dogged refusal to adopt certain changes in doctrine and praxis which characterizes the "Old Calendarists" (or "traditionalist" bodies like ROCOR), and just the opposite which characterizes the innovations (in both thought and deed) of their opponents/detractors.

When does a refusal to change become a refusal to accept reality?

At what point do we become like the Pharasies in adhernece to ancient traditions?

If one lives in North America....why would one want to be part of the "Russian Church in exile" that has a presence in many other countries -- particularly if one is not a Russian refugee from the Communist revolution?

As I understand it, the reality is that the non-Chalcedonians do not accept the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, and that their separation from the Orthodox Church hinges on the rejection of one Council in particular.

Quote

At what point do we become like the Pharasies in adhernece to ancient traditions?

If I remember the Gospels correctly, it was the exaltation of the traditions of men, to the nullification of the law of God, for which the Pharisees were condemned.

As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, the Council of Chalcedon was a grace from God, on the same level as the other Ecumenical Councils. While one can profess to be a Christian and disagree with this (just as there have been, and still are some "Christians" who reject the Symbol of Nicea), they are not Orthodox Christians if they persist in doing such.

There is nothing "pharisaical" about standing up for the dicates of the Holy Spirit. The same Lord Who condemned the hypocracy and innovation of the Pharisees, had great zeal for that which was true and sacred; His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." (St.John 2:17)

Quote

If one lives in North America....why would one want to be part of the "Russian Church in exile" that has a presence in many other countries -- particularly if one is not a Russian refugee from the Communist revolution?

If one lives in North America, why would one want to be a part of the Antiochian, Greek, Romanian, Serbia etc. Archidocese', whose only purpose for existing as administratively separate entities is to preserve ethnic identies, and less savory, act as impliments of power playing at the hands of foreign heirarchies that simply had no business being here to begin with? Lest we forget, the following...

- The Americas were once universally understood to be the mission territory of the Russian Orthodox Church; it was only after the upheavals in Russia and the inability of the Moscow Patriarchate to properly oversee it's foreign missions, that everyone in the old world "took advantage" of the situation and flooded North America with their own set of heirarchs, creating the completly anti-canonical situation of overlapping "juristictions" and flocks divided along purely ethnic lines - almost forgetting that phyletism is in fact a heresy according to Orthodox dogmatics.

- The Metropolia (what is now known as the OCA) of it's own accord was part of the temporary foreign administration commonly known as ROCOR (or ROCA), which was created on the basis of Patriarch St.Tikhon's Ukaze #362, to administer the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad"; and it was by their own accord that they twice went into schism from the ROCOR (once being reconciled, the second time creating a schism which sadly has persisted to the present day). That said, it is at least highly debatable whether the OCA can be smugly insisted upon as legitimatly representing the continuation of the Russian Church's pre-revolutionary mission in the Americas, to the exclusion of the ROCOR at least equally (if not more so) representing the continuation of that mission.

Of course, further grounds for one "wanting" to be a part of the ROCOR, would be the simple reason that they (as Bp.Kallistos Ware readily admits in his wel known The Orthodox Church) embody the fullness of Orthodox piety and tradition (as manifested by what one hears and see's when you go to a typical ROCOR parish, or as manifested by a monastic presence which far outstrips their numbers as compared to other juristictions in the west), which sadly many other juristictions in the west have diminished one way or another. ROCOR doesn't envision itself as a part of the "church which is becoming", or entertain never ending revision of just what Orthodox Christianity is in some vain desire to accomodate heterodoxy (as if there were a "back door" by which it could somehow be invited into the Temple of God); but simply as an Orthodox Church, continuing in the faith and traditions of the Church.

Regarding our own personal decisions, I agree. When we make a choice that effects us and those around us, we have to beware that we are not simply following our own (wrong) inclinations. I wonder if my own words will condemn me? I hope not! Words to live by:

I would also second what Augustine said, though. That there are pious priests and bishops who have already walked certain roads is helpful and good, if we also are thinking about walking on those roads.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2004, 07:58:08 AM by Paradosis »

Logged

"Well, do I convince you, that one ought never to despair of the disorders of the soul as incurable? ...For even if thou shouldst despair of thyself ten thousand times, I will never despair of thee" - St. John Chrysostom

Hello brothers and sisters, I haven't been on this board in a long time, but recently have been browsing. I had forgotten about this thread and found it again through my profile.

I want to apologize for starting this thread and the things I said in it. I was terribly wrong and full of judgment and pride. Please forgive me and say a prayer for me please, a sinner.

I was away from the Church for a while, by my own sins, and have been back by the grace of God since this past Lent. I have a good church, a good priest, and am trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. And yes, I am at the same church.

Hello brothers and sisters, I haven't been on this board in a long time, but recently have been browsing. I had forgotten about this thread and found it again through my profile.

I want to apologize for starting this thread and the things I said in it. I was terribly wrong and full of judgment and pride. Please forgive me and say a prayer for me please, a sinner.

I was away from the Church for a while, by my own sins, and have been back by the grace of God since this past Lent. I have a good church, a good priest, and am trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. And yes, I am at the same church.

David

Angels are rejoicing in Heaven!Welcome back!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

The Americas were once universally understood to be the mission territory of the Russian Orthodox Church

I know it's OT for this thread, but this statement is just flat-out false. There were many Orthodox churches in North America that were not part of the missionary diocese prior to the revolution.

Schimatics, the defrocked and the uncanonical do not count.

In 1888, the Orthodox in Chicago, in the heart of America, organized and petition the Russian Church, and the Russian Bishop in the New World came.http://orthodoxhistory.org/?tag=1888

The "Greek" parish in New Orleans was Pan-Orthodox (its records not being in Greek for half a century), the Russians being involved its founding and the arrival of its first "priest," the Galveston parish was served, at their request, a Greek under the Russian bishop; the parishes of San Francisco and Seattle (and then Chicago) broke off (with the Russian bishops blessing) from the Russian parishes there. The first non-Russian jurisdiction to organize (there was an attempt by the Serbs, with the Russians' blessings, that was abortive) was what when on MUCH later to be GOARCH, but that wasn't until 1922, at the earliest 1918.

Btw, to the OP: welcome back.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 10:59:51 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Curious that the Russian ambassador didn't use your classifications, when he attended the EP-blessed Greek church in NY in the early 1890s because the Russian consular chapel had been shuddered.

Also curious that neither did St. Tikhon. Obviously he made a mistake by never claiming jurisdiction over the scores of Greek parishes and priests that he he encountered once he came to the East coast.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Curious that the Russian ambassador didn't use your classifications, when he attended the EP-blessed Greek church in NY in the early 1890s because the Russian consular chapel had been shuddered.

A shame the Greeks didn't feel the same way:

Quote

By the end of 1893, though, many of the Holy Trinity parishioners wanted to start a second church. The reasons are not entirely clear. The New York Times (January 8, 1894) reported at the time that Holy Trinity was “attended chiefly by the up-town colony of Greeks, and did not fully meet the wants of those who live at the lower end of the city.” The president of the Society of Athena, Solon Vlasto, made direct contact with the Ecumenical Patriarch. In response, the Patriarch sent Archimandrite Kallinikos Delveis to New York, authorizing him to found Annunciation, the city’s second Greek Orthodox church.

Now, it’s not entirely clear why exactly the Society of Athena made this request. There were, by most accounts, something like a thousand Greeks in New York City at the time, and the newly-formed Annunciation parish claimed 300 or 400 members. In his book Orthodox Christians in America, Fr. John Erickson writes that a “dissatisfied group wrote to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, rather than to the Holy Synod of Greece, asking for ‘an educated priest.’” But, as I’ve noted in an earlier post, the priest of Holy Trinity, Fr. Paisios Ferentinos, was in fact quite well-educated. There must have been some sort of dispute, but at the moment, I don’t know the details.

The Greek colony in San Francisco and their consul (according to a NY Times account in 1873, the "best organized Greek" community in America) founded the OCA Cathedral parish shortly before the New Orleans Parish. The first priest of the New Orleans parish ended up in San Francisco, demanding an antimens and vestments from the Russian priest there:

Quote

...About the presbyter Agapius Honcharenko. When I arrived to S.-Francisco, Mister Consul warned me to not allow myself to receive him and not to talk to him. In the evening, ... a man of small stature with a black beard came to my apartment and ordered me to give him vestments and the antimension, and [to cease?] a campaign to establish a newspaper. As I was already warned, I told him that I could not have anything to do with him and asked him to leave me alone. He left my apartment very angrily, and then began to curse all around the city. He is a former monk and married to an Italian woman. The Slavs cannot stand him.

The Greek community was established in 1892? Let's see the Greek "Mother Church of America" says:

Quote

The origin of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Americas is to be found in the believing souls of the Greek Orthodox immigrants. Religion and faith are forces that shape what is called the character of man. We may be justly proud of our history in this Nation and of our ongoing contribution to its religious ethos.

In the fall of 1891 there were about 500 male Greeks and perhaps 20 Greek women in New York. The establishment of the Athena Brotherhood intertwined Hellenism and Greek Orthodoxy; from these few sprung forth the first Greek association in this hemisphere, and the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox parish. It elected as its president Solon J. Vlastos, who three years later founded the first Greek American daily newspaper, The Atlantis.

In fits and starts the fledgling religious community began to grow. Chartered by a special act of the New York State Legislature in 1896, it occupied several locations in lower Manhattan. In 1904 a permanent church building, an Episcopal church of Gothic architecture at 153 East 72nd Street , was purchased. The first service was held on April 3, 1904. Later the same year, the dynamic Father Methodios Kourkoules assumed the pastorate and remained its benevolent and resolute spiritual leader until 1940...Archbishop Athenagoras, later Ecumenical Patriarch (1947–72) consecrated the Cathedral on October 22, 1933 and characterized it as "The Cathedral of all of Hellenism in America."

and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York.

LOL. Yes, parishes. Excessively simplistic: The original organization, the Society of Athena (founded with the help IIRC of a Greek Prince who passed through New York on an American Tour) received a priest, Fr. Ferentinos from the CoG. The Board of Trustees didn't along with the Society, however, so they seperated the parish administration from the Society. The Society then founded another parish and got a priest from the EP, who was unaware of the goings on in NY. Fr. Ferentinos ended up in New Orleans. http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA131&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA130,M1

Divisive: before the Russian Mission returned to New York. That would mean it was there first. (btw, the article's characterization of Fr. Bjerring's mission conflicts with other, DOCUMENTED, sources I've read. Hence I would like to know what Fr. Herbel is getting his information). It is fair to assume that the Imperial Russian Consulate also saw to religious services, as it did in SF and other places until a permanent parish was set up, in the interum. Not terribly important, as a couple years after the founding of the Society of Athena, we find this from the hagiography of St. Raphael Hawaweeny:

Quote

Archimandrite Raphael arrived in New York on November 2, 1895, and was welcomed by a delegation of Arab Christians who were awaiting their leader from Russia. On November 5, his first Sunday in America, he assisted Bishop NICHOLAS in serving the Divine Liturgy at the Russian church in New York city. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Archimandrite Raphael found a suitable place in lower Manhattan to set up a chapel, and furnished it with ecclesiastical items that he had brought with him from Russia. Bishop NICHOLAS blessed the new chapel, which was dedicated to St Nicholas of Myra.

http://antiochianvillage.org/camp/liturgical/patron/straphael.htmlSo nearly the same time as "Greek parishes were established in New York," we have a Russian Bishop in New York, celebrating DL at the (re)constituted Russian Church in NY for the arrival of the future Arab bishop (and saint), the first ordained in the New World, who founded a second parish in NYC, not in the divisive spirit that spawned the Greek parishes, but in the unity of the Arabs within the Russian diocese of America.

I here repeat So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below? BY NO MEANS!:

and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

Excessively simplistic:no one really claims a diocese on the continent until the CoG does so in 1918, and then makes Archb. Meletios of Athens, still resident in Athens (i.e. not in America) bishop of said "diocese." By then, nearly two decades had passed since the Russian Church had organized its diocese into the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, with vicar bishops for Alaska, for the Arabs, etc. with bishops criss-crossing the continent visiting parishes in all corners of it.

Divisive: whereas the Russian Orthodox Church had organized and built the diocese that spaned the continent and all communities, neither CoG nor Constantinople had ANY direct part in building the Church in America, something the Chief Secretary admits and bemoans. Case in point: when St. Tikhon went to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC in 1904, he was basically expelled, and the parish incorporated itself to prevent it being taken over by St. Tikhon, the only hiearch of a hiearchal Church, which the Orthodox Church is (the distinction is important for American law). Anywhere else, this would be called schismatic: why is it acceptable in America? In contrast, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago (which predated the one in NYC) invited St. Tikhon to come serve in 1901, which he did.

So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below? BY NO MEANS!

Quote

And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community. He has no power as far as the written constitution goes. Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America. It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church! From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revelotion. So the Greek priest is hired, and often "fired," by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants. And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers. Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop's jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible. The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!

But back to the origins of the Orthodox (as opposed to Greek Orthodox) community of New York. The first parish was established there in 1870 by the authority of the Russian Holy Synod and the direction of St. Met. Philaret (St. Innocent's mentor), that of Fr. Bjerring (who might have been the first US citizen ordained), mentioned above. It's congregation consisted of the Russian AND GREEK consulates, and some converts. On its consecration:

Quote

His Grace the Right Reverend Bishop Paul (Popov) of Novoarkhangelsk led the Novoarkhangelsk (Sitka) vicariate of the Diocese of Kamchatka during the troubled years following the sale of Alaska to the United States, from 1867 to 1870. He was faced with the departure of the Russian administrative organization and arrival of the American Protestants as well as the new governing apparatus...It was also during this period that Bp. Paul initiated a move that heralded the coming transfer of the see to San Francisco. For a period of time Bp. Paul had assigned Priest Nikolai Kovrigin to San Francisco to serve the spiritual needs of the Slavic population in the San Francisco area. Fr. Nikolai arrived in late March of 1868. He served his first Divine Liturgy on Pascha in a residence on Mission Street. Fr. Nikolai also noted in his report to Bp. Paul that the Gospel was read in four languages: Greek, Slavonic, English, and Russian. He also reported that the next day he served the Divine Liturgy in Greek for the Greeks in the city. Fr. Nikolai also advised that he also held services in Sacramento...Bp. Paul was assigned ruling bishop of the Diocese of Yeniseysk and Krasnoyarsk on June 10, 1870. He departed Alaska, traveling across the United States on the way to Russia. As he was leaving Alaska he met his successor, Bishop John (Mitropolsky), who had arrived the day before he left. While he was in New York City he consecrated on November 12, 1870, the first Orthodox church there, Holy Trinity Greco-Russian Church organized by Father Nicholas Bjerring. On March 13, 1873, Bp. Paul was assigned ruling hierarch of the Diocese of Kamchatka, the Kurile Islands, and Blagoveshchensk. In this position he continued his labors in the missionary field where in addition to his missionary work in Siberia the missionary efforts of St. Nicholas of Japan were under his direction....

Btw the same work (cited by Holy Cross in its "[mis]Statement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate" in response to Met. Jonah) mentiones (p. 27) that during the paper jurisdiction of the CoG over the Americas, "Lambros Coromillas, who was the Greek ambassador to the United States,viewing religion as the "medieval hinderance"...wanting the Church to remain headless so that he could become the unquestioned leader of his compatriots in the United States."

In the meantime, the Russians were building an American hierachy, based in New York. As the Cathedral of All ORTHODOXY in America at the time the temple of Hellenism was being founded says:

Quote

The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Nicholas, at 15 East 97th Street, was built in 1902...The Church of St. Nicholas was established in the early 1890's in rented rooms on lower second avenue to serve an increasing number of russian immigrants. By 1899 it had had 300 members, and a movement began to build a new church...in May 1901, when the cornerstone was laid..."long live the Emperor of Russia and the President of the United States," proclaimed the rev. Alexander Hotovitsky, the minister...In 1904, the crowd outside the church was so huge when bishop Tikhon dedicated a new iconostasis, or altar screen, that the police had to hold them back. ...The next year the headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Church moved from San Francisco to New York, and St. Nicholas became the Cathedral of the American Church.

So have an Orthodox chapel set up under the direct auspices of the senior hiearch of the Russian Church in New York in 1870, serving the Greek consul and his compatriots, consecrated by a BISHOP. Around the same time the Greeks were getting together to have their own Church, but before they were chartered, we have Arabs and Russians with a BISHOP celebrating a PONTIFICAL DL in their Church in New York, to celebrate the arrival of a future saint, who, would be the first Orthodox bishop consecrated in the New World, consecrated in the New York Cathedral:

Quote

St Raphael was consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn on March 13, 1904, by St Tikhon and Bishop Innocent of Alaska (not to be confused with the earlier St Innocent)...The first thing to know about Bishop Raphael’s consecration is the crowd – the enormous, crushing crowd. Two thousand people – some worshippers, some sightseers – were crammed like sardines into the cathedral on Brooklyn’s Pacific Street...Adding to the chaos were the newspaper photographers, one of whom chose to take a picture at the moment of consecration... it was quite a ceremony. No less than four canonized saints participated – Raphael, Tikhon [the bishop in New York], Alexis Toth, and Alexander Hotovitzky [rector of the New York Cathedral]...As far as the general public was concerned, the consecration was a decidedly Russian affair. The newspapers referred to it as being at the Tsar’s orders, and at the celebratory dinner, the Tsar was toasted and the Russian national anthem was sung. One of the first public acts of the new Bishop Raphael was to visit the Russian ambassador in Washington.[v]

These facts did not please the local Greeks one bit. They saw it as an act of Russian imperial expansion, and it contributed to the growing Greek fear that Russian Church aimed to spread its influence across Orthodoxy worldwide. The Greek consul in New York chose not to attend the consecration, and his absence itself made headlines.[vi][Cf. “Greeks Angry at the Czar,” New York Sun (March 15, 1904), 12 and “Fear Russian Rule of Church,” New York Tribune (March 15, 1904), 6.] A few weeks later, on Holy Friday, Bishop Tikhon tried to visit Holy Trinity, one of the Greek churches in New York. Fr. John Erickson writes, “He was barred from entering by its angry trustees, who feared a Russian takeover of their parish properties.”[vii]

not to mention canonical episcopal oversight.

Quote

Also curious that neither did St. Tikhon. Obviously he made a mistake by never claiming jurisdiction over the scores of Greek parishes and priests that he he encountered once he came to the East coast.

See the bold faced paragraph above. Btw, according to GOARCH's present line, the Greek Church of the Holy Trinity was uncanonical. No claim of jurisdiction was advanced until 1908.http://orthodoxhistory.org/?tag=1908

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

Quote

From the Cathedral property manager,Hegoumen SebastianA Most Humble ReportIt is my duty to report to your Grace that the Greek Community in San Francisco has begun building anew church in San Francisco on a plot of land purchased south of Market Street. They ordered a priestby mail for themselves who arrived and was present today at Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral church (hewas standing in the altar). This priest (married) in the rank of sakellarios, Father Constantine . ..[Tsapralis, or Chaprales] has his credentials from his Bishop, Ambrose of the Diocese of Salaris[probably, Fr. Sebastian is mistaken, it could be "Salamis"] (in the Kingdom of Greece), in thejurisdiction of the Holy Synod in Athens. He has a Holy Antimension that was given to him (he says) tocelebrate Liturgy in the United States of North America. He was here with two Orthodox Greeksknown to me.The lowest servant of your Grace,Hegoumen SebastianSan Francisco, November 16, 1903.

Holy Trinity is the oldest Greek Orthodox church west of Chicago, the oldest church within the San Francisco Metropolis, and the eighth oldest church within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Our history spans over 100 years and is linked to the history of our sister parish Annunciation Cathedral and the history of San Francisco. Divine Liturgy was first celebrated on Christmas Day, 1903. We were chartered in the state of California, March, 1904.

But of course not the oldest Orthodox Church in San Francisco, although it predates the Greek Cathedral there. That Cathedral's origins are here:

Quote

Let us tell you a little bit about the history of the Annunciation Cathedral community. St. Sophia, precursor to the Annunciation Cathedral, came into being June 1921, when the parishioners of the Holy Trinity Church, sympathetic to Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, established a second Greek Orthodox community in San Francisco. Land was acquired at Hayes and Pierce streets, all of the lots facing Pierce street from Hayes to Fell streets, for the purpose of building a Cathedral and an adjoining school and orphanage. Ground was broken June 1921, with a ceremony where His Eminence Metropolitan Meletios Metaxakis, Archbishop of Athens, laid the cornerstone of the cathedral.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm a 'hardliner' and only prostrate at weekday Divine Liturgies, even at my home GOA parish, and "never on Sunday". My fellow parishoners at my wife's ACROD parish noted this also about me and questioned the priest at their last 'Adult Education Class'; he replied that ole' Demetri was being proper - to their great surprise.Matters not...Love the Lord.

Demetri

I've been to a few Greek Liturgies on Sundays in my area and there is a point when all the "kneelers" in the pews come clanking down and everyone kneels. I stand but bend over and place my arms on the back of the pew in front of me and then rest my forehead on my arms and no one ever seems to notice I'm not kneeling.

I do not agree with what Tom is saying in this particular thread, but I do agree with the jist of what he said. Being humble means doing that which will draw the least attention to yourself... and standing (or even sitting) even as everyone else is kneeling is not exactly a way to remain "below the radar".

A way I have seen some people avoid the kneeling and sitting issues is that they stand along the back wall of the Church.

I am much more comfortable with the christological teaching of such masters as St. John of Damascus and St. Severus of Antioch, and indeed precisely these two!

A Chalcedonian who venerates Saint Severus of Antioch?!!

Well, cool!

« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 04:08:37 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.